The Future of American School Boards

Maryland Association of Boards

of Education

2015 Annual Conference

Ocean City, MD

“God made the Idiot

for practice….

…and then he made

the school board.”

Mark Twain, 1897

“The local school board, especially

the elected kind, is an anachronism

and an outrage....”

“We can no longer pretend it’s

working well…..”

“We need to…..put this dysfunctional

arrangement out of its misery….” Chester E. Finn Jr., President,

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2014

Headline

“First, Kill All the School Boards A modest proposal to fix the schools”

-Headline: Special “State of the Union” Issue

The national Atlantic Monthly magazine, 2008

“I can state unequivocally, that

neither state nor federal policy

makers can redesign school

districts. Only those leading districts

can.”

“Board members…. are close

enough to communities and schools

to see what needs to be done….”

Former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige

Knowledge of governance data to….

….understand their importance

…….inspire their service

…..lobby/influence state & national leaders

Local board members do not come with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints

33%

24%

15%

28%

Board Occupation

Education

Business

Professional

Labor, Other

Local board members do not come with adequate background or experience to govern a school district.

What composition of occupational background would create the best school board?

___% Educators

___% Business persons

___% Professional

___% Labor & Other

Less Effective Boards = Majority Businessperson

Less Effective Boards = Majority Educators

More Effective Boards = Majority Other Occupation

Pair share: Why do you think this is?

*Fordham Institute Report: Shober & Hartney, 2014-Does School Board

Leadership Matter?

“The fact that board members can influence achievement, even loosely, merits much more attention—surely by scholars but also by voters,

parents, taxpayers, and other policy-makers.” *Chester Finn-Fordham Institute Report: Shober & Hartney, 2014-Does School Board Leadership Matter?

Boards do not have equitable representation.

What do the data say?

Gender & Ethnicity

Equity Issue Local Boards 2012 U.S. Congress

Gender 44% Female 25% Female

Ethnicity-overall 12% AA/3% HS House 9.4% AA Senate 1% AA

Ethnicity-Urban 37% AA/8% HS

Politically 32% Con. 47% Mod. 21% Lib.

“Everyone knows that local school boards don’t work…..the top performing countries don’t use local governance”

-SPU Keynote: Dr. Thomas Maridada, Children’s

Defense Fund- Director of Education Policy, Practice and Strategic Initiatives, 2014

Centralized Decentralized

Governance Governance

Australia Hong Kong Finland New-Zealand

Canada Sweden Singapore

USA England

Comparing Governance Models

(Vitikka & Hurmerinta, 2011; Risku, 2013)

Centralized Decentralized

Governance Governance

Australia Hong Kong Finland New-Zealand

(#12) (#1) (#5) (#13)

Canada Sweden Singapore

(#8) (#36) (#2)

USA England

(#23) (#22)

Comparing 2012 PISA Reading Scores

1995-2011 TIMMS Performance Trends Country 4th Math 8th Math Governance

United States + 17 pts +23 pts Decentralized??

Finland +20 pts +21 pts Decentralized

Sweden -55 pts -43 pts Centralized

Japan -11 pts -18 pts Centralized

Korea + 32 pts +24 pts Centralized

“..systems that grant more autonomy to schools to define and elaborate their curriculum and assessments perform better than systems that don’t..”

“there is a positive correlation in school autonomy for resource allocation and improved student performance”

Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in

Education – PISA Report 2012

GERM

Global Educational Reform Movement

standardization

emphasis on literacy and numeracy

teaching prescribed curriculum

control

test-based accountability

(Sahlberg, 2011; pp. 99-106, Kuusilehto & Lahtero, 2011; Risku, 2013)

“As we have said before, local school boards are the crucible of democracy. Local school elections in America provide the closest example of democracy for the American people.”

Laurence Iannaccone/Frank Lutz, 2008

Professors Emeritus,

Univ. of California/Texas A & M

Democratic board theorists, 1959

The use of

Balanced Governance

Disengaged Board

Integrated Governance (Wong & Shen) Democractic Governance (Hill)

Policy Governance (Carver/Broad)

Coherent Governance (Quinn & Dawson)

Balanced Governance (Alsbury)

Lighthouse Governance (Delagardelle)

Over-Reaching Board

Ba L anced ??

Governance Continuum

Disengaged Balanced

Governance

Over-

Reaching

Processes-

Means

Balanced

Governance

Outcomes-

Ends

Disengaged Board = Uniformed Defense

“You don’t understand how hard our teachers work”

“ We use research based best practices to ensure all kids can learn”

“We need to improve/replace teachers or leaders”

“It is not the school’s fault….it’s broken families”

Over-Reaching Board

“If our teachers and administrators don’t meet the goals, they will eventually not work here anymore. Boards members must monitor what is happening in schools because school employees will naturally spin things for their own benefit. I have no problem criticizing failures in board meetings to show that I am doing my job of ensuring accountability.”

Balanced Governance = Informed Oversight

“We measure individual student growth and for any student with slower than expected math improvement, schools use a proven program [name it] adapted to meet individual student needs and local community goals. We monitor the student progress quarterly and show 150% growth for most students. Alternative programs [name them] are being used for the 10% of students not showing growth. For example….”

Disengaged Board = Uninformed Compliance

“Math scores will increase by 20% by Spring 2014 on the State achievement exam”

Over-Reaching Board

“Math scores will increase by 20% by Spring 2014 on the State achievement exam. Board members will spend time in schools to ensure the adopted program is being implemented properly. Those not meeting the goal will have reduced pay and be on a plan of improvement.”

Writing a Balanced Governance Policy

Balanced Governance Criteria: ◦ Measureable outcomes identified

◦ Specify data type to be presented to the board

◦ Specify frequency and time of data presentation

◦ Specify format of data presentation

◦ Require identification of policy alignment to strategic goal

Balanced Governance= Informed Oversight

“Cohort-tracked math test scores on multiple measures (classroom work, class content tests, state exam) showing student growth (by student on class measures & by District on Standardized exams) and disaggregated by SES & ethnicity will be presented quarterly to target effect of focused reform programs”

Use of Board Practices that improve

student performance

?? % Strongly Agree

85% Strongly Agree

(Alsbury & Mountford, 2012; Hess & Meeks, NSBA, 2010)

How?

Do you think intra-board conflict or frequent contentious board turnover can hurt student achievement?

If so, how is the damage done?

Frequent Politically-Contentious Board turnover

Frequent Superintendent turnover

Student achievement decline

Board and superintendent tenure is declining (Glass, 2009) ◦ Loss of organizational memory

◦ Loss of board training by experienced members

Indirect but significant influence (Glass, 2007) ◦ Decline of staff morale/security

◦ Discontinuity of goals/purpose

◦ Declining community confidence in schools

◦ Personnel instability & Lack of confidence

The use of elevating beliefs and

promotion of effective conditions

Boards in high achieving districts were consistently different from boards in low achieving districts:

They held differing Beliefs

(Delagardelle, 2001-2015)

Elevating Beliefs Conditions for Success

Students viewed as emerging and flexible

School’s job is to release student’s potential

No excuses

Constant quest for improvement of system

Connections across the system

Knowing what it takes to change achievement

Workplace support Professional development Use of data to balance

districtwide direction and building autonomy

Community connection Distributed leadership

The use of Effective Board Behaviors

Elevating

Board

Activities

Elevating

Superintendent

Activities

Student

Achievement

Increases

Option #1: Board member values and beliefs influence superintendent to engage in more student achievement activities.

Student Achievement

Option #2: Board member have no elevating values and beliefs but hire a superintendent who engages in more student achievement activities and they do not interfere.

Student Achievement

Given the Shelton study findings:

◦ Why should board members be trained to improve

student achievement?

◦ Why not just hire well and leave it all to the superintendent?

Ineffective board

values and beliefs (Delagardelle, 2008)

Increased political

conflict & board

turnover (Alsbury,

2008)

Loss of effective

superintendent (Alsbury, 2003)

Lower Achievement

The use of Strategic Role Shift

The Trustee/Delegate Dance

Delegate (Arena) role:

◦ Open Debate

◦ Frequent split votes

◦ Focus on special interest

◦ Values individual viewpoints

◦ Doesn’t expect collective support of final board decisions

Trustee (Elite) role:

◦ Open Dialogue

◦ Unanimous votes

◦ Focus on general interests

◦ Welcomes various viewpoints

◦ Expects collective support of final board decisions

Non-critical Level of Dissatisfaction

Trustee Role =

Looking Inward

Board Addresses

Collective Interests

Delegate Role =

Looking Outward

Board Addresses

Special Interests

1. Monitor community values change (10 years)

2. Know your board election history (20+ years)

3. Know your turnover history (20 years+) [See Handout]

Solution: Boards with growing community dissatisfaction need to move temporarily to a

“delegate” board role before the “line” is crossed.

Identify a potential shift in “community values” in your district.

What evidence predicted the shift?

What are 2-3 action steps that might work to stabilize your situation?

Use of Effective Board Standards

What is missing?

What is different?

All members of the community are stakeholders in the success of their schools.

Community engagement is a reciprocal advocacy process that creates and sustains meaningful conversations, systems connections, and feedback loops with all groups in the community.

Successful community engagement results in collaborative partnerships and new types and levels of community participation in schools.

Board leadership is proactive, integrated, and distributed.

Boards establish focus, direction, and expectations that foster student learning.

Across education systems, boards develop and implement collaborative leadership models and practices that are guided by shared student learning goals.

Within organizations, boards align authority and responsibility so that decisions can be made at levels close to implementation.

The cultural diversity of a community has many facets – social, economic, political, religious, geographical, generational, linguistic, ethnic, racial, and gender. Boards develop an understanding of this diversity and hold perspectives that reflect the cultures in their community.

Effective community engagement and expectancy strategies build on the strengths of a community’s cultural diversity.

Innovation and creativity are assets to the process of development and change, leading to new types of thinking and better ways of meeting student needs.

Innovation and creativity are not predictable, but can flourish when boards align vision throughout the organization, engage in collaborative partnerships, and encourage dialogue, new ideas, and differing perspectives.

Select one of the Balanced Governance Standards

Discuss: ◦ How is this standard different from your current

standard?

◦ Does your board currently assess this standard?

◦ How does your board rate on this standard?

◦ How could your board improve in this area?

Use of Effective

Individual Board Member Characteristics

Some individual attributes, beliefs, and behaviors are ◦ Linked to longer board member tenure

◦ Linked to improved district success

Understands the difference between being position-driven and interest-driven.

◦ A position is often polarizing and identifies

“friends” versus “enemies”.

◦ An interest is discovered through conversation to get to shared solutions that can be applied to many students and achieved through various means.

Understands the difference between standardized and contextualized solutions.

◦ The understanding that the local school district,

and each school has unique and shifting needs; often requiring innovative solutions.

Understands the difference between the use of voice to tell and sell their position versus seeking to hear and understand interests, and come to resolution and reconciliation.

Select one of the Individual Board Member Characteristics

Discuss: ◦ How are you and other board members doing on

this characteristic?

◦ How could board members improve in this area?

Use of Board Assessments

Self Reflection

Motivation

Voice

Decision-Making

Power Over

Power

Altruistic

With & thru

Others

Low vocal

Silenced

Individually

Personal

Highly

Verbal

Power With

Motivation

Voice

Decision-Making

Power Over

Power

Altruistic

With & thru

Others

Low vocal

Silenced

Individually

Personal

Highly

Verbal

Power With

Table Share ◦ How well would you predict this board works

together?

◦ What could be done to address the disconnection between board members who are willing to function as a team?

Meeting Dynamics/Interactions

Topic Analysis

Topic Comparison to Strategic Goals

Topic/Behavior Comparison to National Performance

Topic/Behavior Comparison to High Performing Boards

Direct Instructional Focus vs. Supporting Instructional Focus

Goal Monitoring vs. Management Inquiry

Bridging vs. Bonding

Perceived Values & Beliefs

Use of District Strategic Teams

How can the district better measure, monitor, and fix organizational barriers and processes?

How can a board over-see without over-reach regarding organizational health and process?

DST Goals: ◦ Identifying and removing systems barriers

◦ Identifying and Improving elements of organizational health

◦ Increasing organizational capacity for sustainable reform

Monitor

Analyze

Report Support

Plan

Implement

Action

Harvard Press

Available July 1, 2015 for Pre-Order

Thomas L. Alsbury, EdD Professor, Seattle Pacific University

President, Balanced Governance Solutions©

Director, UCEA Center for Research

on the Superintendency

& District Governance

alsbury@balancedgovernancesolutions.com

Thomas L. Alsbury

Professor, Educational Leadership

Seattle Pacific University

Director, UCEA Center for Research on the

Superintendency & District Governance

President, Balanced Governance Solutions™

alsbury@balancedgovernancesolutions.com

www.balancedgovernancesolutions.com

Phone: 919-961-3496